The Brooklyn bookshop saving out-of-print sci-fi, one e-book at a time

The genre enthusiasts are working with rights holders to preserve great books.

With its dramatic cover art and fantastical story plots, science fiction dared readers to dream of amazing possible futures filled with aliens, robots, and all sorts of gadgetry. Now, ironically, some of the earliest books of the genre find themselves precariously near extinction, never to make it to the future they describe. Until Singularity & Co came onto the scene, that is.

Lawyer Ash Kalb, musician-anthropologist Cici James, stylist-writer Jamil V Moen, and former Gawker media community manager Kaila Hale-Stern are the intrepid crew behind the Brooklyn-based bookshop. Each month, Singularity & Co—with the help of its community—chooses one great out-of-print or obscure science fiction novel, tracks down the copyright holders and makes that work available in DRM-free PDF, Epub, and Mobi format for subscribers.

Founded in April, after a massively successful Kickstarter campaign that earned them 350 percent of their $15,000 (£9,500) goal and kudos from authors like Neil Gaiman, Cory Doctorow and Ken McLeod, Singularity & Co hasn't always had the easiest time unraveling vintage sci-fi's copyright issues. "We knew it would be difficult to track down the legal status of the books, but it's simply much harder than we though it would be," said James.

Books get lost along the way for a variety of reasons. There could be no perceived demand for it, publication rights become muddled, or the books are simply forgotten. Sometimes, things get political. "It's really sad because a lot of really great books get lost not because nobody wants them but because people with lots of money who claim they have the rights are stopping people who have the rights from actually doing things. We hope to help these people down the road," said Kalb, the lawyer of the group, who takes charge of helping authors and author estates untangle the copyright mess.

Since April, Singularity & Co moved into a high-ceilinged space that doubles as the team's work area for their respective personal pursuits in Brooklyn's Dumbo (down under the Manhattan Bridge overpass) neighborhood. "We call it the bookshop at the end of the Universe because we're on the edge of Dumbo, where it becomes Vinegar Hill," said Kalb, "We're surrounded by scenery that wouldn't work for anybody else, but it's perfect for us." Views of power grids greet visitors alongside shelves of sci-fi books arranged chronologically, instead of alphabetically.

It has also published two books: A Plunge Into Space by Robert Cromie and The Torch by Jack Bechdolt, both with fresh cover art reimagined by artists today (in the future, Singularity & Co's plans to find original cover artists and secure rights for reprinting their illustrations). For its soon-to-be-released third book, Mr Stranger's Sealed Packet by Hugh MacColl, the team tracked down the lone copy out of university archives and went on a thousand-mile drive just to scan it.

Despite being out of copyright, none of the universities who owned a copy of Mr. Stranger's Sealed Packet permitted scanning. "If you're part of that university or that consortium then you have access to that book. If you don't then you don't," said James.

"Which is sad," added Kalb, "the default position of the organisation seems to be, 'I don't know if this is valuable but, just in case it is, I want to make sure nobody else gets their hands on it.'"

As expected, authors and author estates are quite happy to get the call from Singularity & Co—not only because it means revived readership, but also, surprisingly, a better business deal. "We negotiated our first couple of deals based on what we thought was fair as opposed to what was normally done in the publishing industry," said Kalb, "As a result—especially for backlist stuff—we're offering just a much better deal. That's because we know we can do things efficiently and make enough to keep going that way. We also want to make sure that we're fair to everyone that we work with."

It's that benevolent business spirit that has earned Singularity & Co praise from the community. "This project is about what it appears to be about," said Kalb, "We're not in this business to make a ton of money. It'd be great if we can bring some value to the people that own this stuff and also bring the books back to the world." The bookshop works with a socially responsible enterprise framework—one that doesn't aim for astronomical profits, but simply wants to keep the lights on and the scanner running.

Flush with success, Singularity & Co's looking to extend its service by carrying new sci-fi books in its Brooklyn shop; opening an e-store that offers sci-fi cover art-inspired merchandise; and further along in the future, launching another imprint in charge of reviving books from another genre. Could world domination be next?

Learn more about Singularity & Co here, and you can subscribe to their service here.

too bad it'll be just for "american scifi", I can name half a dozen scifi books out of my head, originating from europe, that i tried to get my hands on... i.e. SETERRA trilogy by Bernd Kreimeier, AIPOTU and "The Last Starship" just popped in my mind. Those books left some........ "impact"...when I was a little lad, reading scifi like there's no tomorrow

-Back on topic: As a lifelong fan of classic scifi (reading Stapleton's "Starmaker" at the moment), I think this is a wonderful initiative. Much classic scifi is actually great literature with real cultural and artistic significance, but never seems to get treated with the respect it deserves. The best of it needs to be preserved not only for today's readers but for future generations.

Until this very moment, I never had a reason to buy an e-reader.Now, I do.

E-readers are great for reading otherwise out of print books, if second hand books and libraries don't work out for you.

Orion Books have an imprint called Gateway, for publishing classic science fiction as e-books where otherwise it would be uneconomical to do a print run. Gollancz is their paper imprint, a long established publisher of science fiction in Britain.

Very timely. Because this is the weekend of the World Science Fiction convention (http://chicon.org/) - Chicon 7 in Chicago (Where Ar's tethers the orbiting HQ at times) and where there is a plethora of book dealers selling some of these very same long lost treasures. Wandering the rows brought back lots of memories. I wish the Bookshop much luck!

Until this very moment, I never had a reason to buy an e-reader.Now, I do.

E-readers are great for reading otherwise out of print books, if second hand books and libraries don't work out for you.

Orion Books have an imprint called Gateway, for publishing classic science fiction as e-books where otherwise it would be uneconomical to do a print run. Gollancz is their paper imprint, a long established publisher of science fiction in Britain.

-Back on topic: As a lifelong fan of classic scifi (reading Stapleton's "Starmaker" at the moment), I think this is a wonderful initiative. Much classic scifi is actually great literature with real cultural and artistic significance, but never seems to get treated with the respect it deserves. The best of it needs to be preserved not only for today's readers but for future generations.

This sounds like a great project, but at a book a month, there probably needs to be a few thousand of these projects going at once to get through the backlog of out-of-print books in a reasonable time frame, unless they're also extending human life expectancy using the knowledge gained from those science fiction novels.

This type of project seems to provide an excellent use case for why copyright terms should be reduced to something that is a bit closer to something that is actually feasible to manage. Truly massive terms (life plus some random number of years) is just plain unworkable when the works truly DO have a progressive benefit to Science and the Useful Arts.

Massive catalogues of the types of works that not only give fresh, young minds something to dream about, but also propel them into the types of careers where those works, based in fantasy by the writer, became an aspirational dream by the child and then later turned into a cold hard reality by that same child grown up which can benefit the entire of humanity.

THIS is how progress works and THIS is what we need to preserve.

We dont need to eliminate copyright entirely. If something is still making money for its author after a couple of decades, they are certainly entitled to it, but there must be a balance against the thousands upon thousands of works that are tied up in bureaucratic red tape or simply abandoned.

Copyright holders should have to _apply_ to extended the holding term beyond a given point, say 10 or 20 years. And a part of approving a longer term is that they should also be required to show that they are continuing to provide, or at the very least, maintain The Works that they are receiving protection for.

Simply put: No maintenance, no copyright. The gift of copyright from The Public to The Holder should be given only upon the proviso that The Holder commits to returning The Work to The Public once he or she is either no longer able to, or no longer willing to maintain it.

Copyright holders should have to _apply_ to extended the holding term beyond a given point, say 10 or 20 years. And a part of approving a longer term is that they should also be required to show that they are continuing to provide, or at the very least, maintain The Works that they are receiving protection for.

They use to. It use to be something like 20 years, with a once off option to extend the copyright by X if you applied, then Mickey Mouse started to get near the end of his copyright term... and well the rest is history.

It's frankly odd that there are books published almost a century ago that aren't in the public domain yet because some corporation decided it's cash cow was more important then humanities collective knowledge base.

The whole point of copyright was to grant a limited monopoly to content creators to spur innovation, not an indefinite money printing press. Hell the people that wrote the first copyright laws flat out said they were evil, but they considered them a necessary evil to promote innovation...

We dont need to eliminate copyright entirely. If something is still making money for its author after a couple of decades, they are certainly entitled to it, but there must be a balance against the thousands upon thousands of works that are tied up in bureaucratic red tape or simply abandoned.

Why? Why is a person entitled to continue to live off the works of their youth? Why should a given creators' children continue to reap the benefits first hand? No other industry provides for the worker to continue to reap the benefits into perpetuity why should the IP worker be given different consideration?

Copyright law should only be long enough to allow the creator to control access to their work until they produce another work. The amount of time and effort that goes into creating that work varies so the single time span chosen needs to be long enough to cover a reasonable set of cases and no longer. There have been studies that puts the maximal beneficial copyright length at 12 years. Which is exactly where it started in the US (shocking? shouldn't be.).

Quote:

Copyright holders should have to _apply_ to extended the holding term beyond a given point, say 10 or 20 years. And a part of approving a longer term is that they should also be required to show that they are continuing to provide, or at the very least, maintain The Works that they are receiving protection for.

Agreed. If we allow an extension it should be applied for AND payed for. It should also be limited in when they can apply for it. I have before suggested that a copyright holder should be given 12 years and allowed to pay for a single extension IF they pay a large, but reasonable, sum within 90 days of initial publication.

That sum should be large enough to deter all but the most well off authors/publishers from committing every work to the extension, but not so large that a reasonably successful author couldn't afford to pay it. Ideally, only those works that the creator has a reason to believe will continue to be culturally relevant (and thus continue to generate significant amounts of money after the initial 12 years) will pay for the extension. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $100k should be the right point. It might take a moderately successful author a small business loan to protect the work for longer than the initial copyright term, but that's the risk they'd have to decide to take.

Why is a person entitled to continue to live off the works of their youth? Why should a given creators' children continue to reap the benefits first hand? No other industry provides for the worker to continue to reap the benefits into perpetuity why should the IP worker be given different consideration

This is a straw man. Anyone who makes an investment may continue to reap the benefits indefinitely. Also, how long does it take a worker to be fully compensated for a work? Some jobs immediately pay in full. With others, compensation drags out over a long time period. Some jobs are never fully compensated. IP tends to fall into this later category. How many authors ever make back a reasonable rate on the time they've invested?

You have to give props to Singularity for doing this, it seems to be something that publishers should be doing but instead its the little guy (again) that comes up with the great idea and makes it work for producers and consumers.

Anyone who makes an investment may continue to reap the benefits indefinitely. Also, how long does it take a worker to be fully compensated for a work? Some jobs immediately pay in full. With others, compensation drags out over a long time period. Some jobs are never fully compensated. IP tends to fall into this later category. How many authors ever make back a reasonable rate on the time they've invested?

Let's face it, it doesn't take over a hundred years for Disney to recoup the investment in Mickey Mouse. And the whole point of the exclusive copyright expiring in a reasonable amount of time is to force Disney to make more creative works, not sit on its ass.

Keep those arguments up and it will look like you are the person behind the handle "freetopia" ...

Major kudos to these folks, I wish them all the best. I also suggest they visit Victoria, B.C.'s capital on Vancouver Island. Not sure if it is still there, but I remember visiting as a kid and going to a tiny hole-in-the-wall bookstore near the old fortress area that was absolutely stuffed with classic SF books and short story magazines from the dawn of time. This WAS a long time ago, but those books still have to be somewhere. Victoria is an old city, as far as North America goes. I am sure there will be works that are not found on the east coast.

That said,

Quote:

"the default position of the organization seems to be, 'I don't know if this is valuable but, just in case it is, I want to make sure nobody else gets their hands on it.'"

makes me sad. Weren't we taught to grow out of this attitude in the friggin' sandbox in kindergarten??

Why is a person entitled to continue to live off the works of their youth? Why should a given creators' children continue to reap the benefits first hand? No other industry provides for the worker to continue to reap the benefits into perpetuity why should the IP worker be given different consideration

This is a straw man. Anyone who makes an investment may continue to reap the benefits indefinitely. Also, how long does it take a worker to be fully compensated for a work? Some jobs immediately pay in full. With others, compensation drags out over a long time period. Some jobs are never fully compensated. IP tends to fall into this later category. How many authors ever make back a reasonable rate on the time they've invested?

I would suggest the same thing to that author that I would suggest to others who do not feel they are being fairly compensated for their hourly work: they need to find a different job.

Investments are a different category altogether: there is no protection inherent in investments (there are limited protections against bad actors in the investment realm). You place your money in and you are taking a non-zero risk that you will lose that money. If you gain an increase and leave your money in you are continuing to take a non-zero risk that you will lose your original + gain.

Copyright is a guarantee that an IP creator will continue to have the potential to have monetary gain into (essentially) perpetuity. This is a ridiculous proposition even if any given author might not actually make money. That is a risk they should have to weigh: can they make a living off of their work in the timeframe that the society gives it to do so exclusively? If not, perhaps they need a second job, or to do something else entirely.

You called out a claimed strawman (and then gave a really bad support for it being so) without addressing any of my other points. Why should IP protection be extended into virtual perpetuity? Why should we treat IP so significantly differently than every other job on the face of this earth?

Quote:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Now I will point out an incorrect statement in my original post. According to This UK study the optimal copyright term is 14 years not the 12 that I thought it said originally. The key to the preceding quote is that "limited Times" portion of it. We can hardly assert that we are protecting the IP holder for "limited Times" when the holder is capable of controlling their work (and thus the monetization) of it for their entire life, and in many cases their children can continue to do so. We are further making it worse by continuing to extend copyright terms ever couple of decades. Right now copyright is Life + 70 years.

Over the past dozen years we have seen more and more reasons that our current copyright term is wrong and bad for the culture of the world as a whole. Whether it's older works cannot be "remixed" by newer creators without being subjected to the Infinite Lawyer Army of the copyright holder, or simply a work cannot be "made available" due to a work being orphaned. There are many other examples but they all stem from the same issue: copyright terms are simply too long.

The thing that is insane about it is that it seems that everyone in a position of power seems to be clamoring (with various levels of insistency/importance) to craft new laws to cover the symptoms and no one is being brave enough to stand up against the copyright holders and take time away from them. We need to address the root cause of the copyright problems that we are having and stop directing our attentions to its symptoms.

The genre enthusiasts are working with rights holders to preserve great books.

Whaaat!? Working with? Like respect instead of mass copying and putting it on a site with a nautical theme? Whatever happen to, "information wants to be free"?

* not a personal reply to Ostracus, but more a comment on, and answer to, his/her question.

Respect works best when its reciprocated. That hasn't happened for at least a generation, as we've seen the endless march toward perpetual copyright get funded by the interests that benefit, bribing Congress.

My take is, a law that is bought for the benefit of the few is not a law. The logical extension of that is, copying is not illegal. I'll go further and say, how can I steal something that doesn't belong to you ( it belongs to the public )?

For the most part, I never participated in downloading music, movies, etc. because I've spent my time on other things ( not really posturing with moral superiority here, I'm just saying I live my life differently than most, that's all ) than media consumption. One of those things is reading books. I am a huge supporter of used bookstores, B&N, Amazon, etc. I buy at least a few thousand a year in books. However, if I find that a work I am interested in is out of print, and unobtainable, I will seek it out online and download it.

If you built your work on the pillar of history, as almost every single person has done, then you are obligated to give back history. There is no argument against this other than greed and selfishness. And if that is your view, then you deserve to be "robbed".

Having recently graduated from one of the academic institutions with a closed collection, I can empathize with those searching for out of print works by their desired authors. While a cardholder, I could simply walk downstairs and check out the 1976 edition of “A Plunge Into Space” by Robert Cromie, or read the 1948 edition of “The Torch” autographed by Jack Bechdolt in the rare books library, the paradox being that though I had access, I had no time to read for pleasure.

Given that the aforementioned university library lists “Online (1,094,068)” as the count of out-of-print volumes digitized as part of the Google Books Library Project, Singularity & Co’s efforts are likely only to benefit a narrow audience, at an overly high cost.

This cost, of embarking “on a thousand-mile drive just to scan [a book],” would likely be better spent browsing the copyright protected books in Google’s arsenal and lobbying targeted rights-holders to release the full digital text for all to enjoy.

Respect works best when its reciprocated. That hasn't happened for at least a generation, as we've seen the endless march toward perpetual copyright get funded by the interests that benefit, bribing Congress.

Is that a condemnation upon all content creators? Sounds like a pretty broad brush from an audience not fond of such brushes applied to themselves.

Quote:

If you built your work on the pillar of history, as almost every single person has done, then you are obligated to give back history. There is no argument against this other than greed and selfishness. And if that is your view, then you deserve to be "robbed".

Has everyone here given back to history? Then by those words a lot of you deserved to be "robbed".

I would suggest the same thing to that author that I would suggest to others who do not feel they are being fairly compensated for their hourly work: they need to find a different job.

Mmmm, no. If this was one of the other forums, the suggestion wouldn't be, "it's all your fault". It would be, "find a different boss". Some of the current crop of "bosses" leave something to be desired. Also as has been repeatedly pointed out in this whole, "who needs whom", a content creator has more options than the "get another job" crowd who's sole contribution is, "we might give you our love, if we feel like it".

Respect works best when its reciprocated. That hasn't happened for at least a generation, as we've seen the endless march toward perpetual copyright get funded by the interests that benefit, bribing Congress.

Is that a condemnation upon all content creators?

Nope, just the ones that are doing the complaining.

As the article says, the content creators or estates that were being contacted were all very positive about having the books republished, DRM free. It's a common reaction from actual content creators as opposed to purely rights holders.

When you die your Ebook Collection will be worth nothing to your heir or heirs.You will not be able to pass along with Value the Book Collection you built up.On the other hand when I die my son will receive a Book Collection Appraised Conservatively at $16500 .Over 1000 paperbacks including many Vintage Rarities.Over 100 Hardcovers and 303 Pulp Magazines.That is my science fiction section.Also you can add in about 150 World War 2 Hardcovers and most of those are First Editions.All of them have to do with the Eastern Front.Includes the Title "Bloody Streets: The Battle For Berlin" which in itself is selling for over $500 generally.

I do not own one Ebook nor will I.And if I had any they still won't be mine as I would only be paying for the Right to "Rent" it in a way.

Respect works best when its reciprocated. That hasn't happened for at least a generation, as we've seen the endless march toward perpetual copyright get funded by the interests that benefit, bribing Congress.

Is that a condemnation upon all content creators? Sounds like a pretty broad brush from an audience not fond of such brushes applied to themselves.

Quote:

If you built your work on the pillar of history, as almost every single person has done, then you are obligated to give back history. There is no argument against this other than greed and selfishness. And if that is your view, then you deserve to be "robbed".

Has everyone here given back to history? Then by those words a lot of you deserved to be "robbed".

To your first question, no, it's not a condemnation of all creators. Like any complex issue, the facets are many. I gave an example in my initial post; I pay for lots of material, but others, whose copyright is rotting in a corporate vault somewhere while the work itself is out of print, I shall acquire by any means available. If that means "stealing" it, then so be it.

It really depends on the case. I'd treat a man who took a loaf of bread to feed his hungry child differently than the men who run parasitic financial schemes that damage society so deeply,

To your second question.... I can't speak for everyone, but I've given back to history in many ways. The most simple, which probably applies to many here, is by donating to, or patronizing a museum, big or small. These institutions work to preserve our history. I volunteered to help with repair and restoration of a 300 year old former School in northern Vermont, now a museum. I've created a number of art works myself ( not that anyone will ever care, at least so long as I am alive, heheheh ), including books I've made, sculpture, drawings, a few oil and watercolor paintings, all of which are in the hands of friends or family members. Who knows, maybe one will turn up in an archaeological dig someday.

The ultimate point here is, everyone deserves to make a living on their work, but that work was absolutely derived from history and our collective culture. The work came from it, and after a time, it should return to it. The length of that time is the issue. Will it be reasonable? Will it take 3-4 generations? Or will it become property to be sold and rented through what will become a very poor future / history?

When you die your Ebook Collection will be worth nothing to your heir or heirs.You will not be able to pass along with Value the Book Collection you built up.On the other hand when I die my son will receive a Book Collection Appraised Conservatively at $16500 .Over 1000 paperbacks including many Vintage Rarities.Over 100 Hardcovers and 303 Pulp Magazines.That is my science fiction section.Also you can add in about 150 World War 2 Hardcovers and most of those are First Editions.All of them have to do with the Eastern Front.Includes the Title "Bloody Streets: The Battle For Berlin" which in itself is selling for over $500 generally.

I do not own one Ebook nor will I.And if I had any they still won't be mine as I would only be paying for the Right to "Rent" it in a way.

When you die your Ebook Collection will be worth nothing to your heir or heirs.You will not be able to pass along with Value the Book Collection you built up.On the other hand when I die my son will receive a Book Collection Appraised Conservatively at $16500 .Over 1000 paperbacks including many Vintage Rarities.Over 100 Hardcovers and 303 Pulp Magazines.That is my science fiction section.Also you can add in about 150 World War 2 Hardcovers and most of those are First Editions.All of them have to do with the Eastern Front.Includes the Title "Bloody Streets: The Battle For Berlin" which in itself is selling for over $500 generally.

I do not own one Ebook nor will I.And if I had any they still won't be mine as I would only be paying for the Right to "Rent" it in a way.

Yes, yes. Those people at amazon will come and take your kindle and help clean it up for your use.

When you die your Ebook Collection will be worth nothing to your heir or heirs.You will not be able to pass along with Value the Book Collection you built up.On the other hand when I die my son will receive a Book Collection Appraised Conservatively at $16500 .Over 1000 paperbacks including many Vintage Rarities.Over 100 Hardcovers and 303 Pulp Magazines.That is my science fiction section.Also you can add in about 150 World War 2 Hardcovers and most of those are First Editions.All of them have to do with the Eastern Front.Includes the Title "Bloody Streets: The Battle For Berlin" which in itself is selling for over $500 generally.

I do not own one Ebook nor will I.And if I had any they still won't be mine as I would only be paying for the Right to "Rent" it in a way.

Paperback collection was at 1600+ titles last time I tried to catalog them.Pulp collection 1000+ magazines ... it has been years now since I have tried to catalog thoughHardbacks several hundred dating back as far as 1858Value: Priceless. Except for duplicates these will not be available for sale

ebooks 600+ DRM free, -0- DRM. These books are mine to save, destroy, sell, or giveaway. I can also convert to new formats if the existing format(s) become(s) unusable.

At the present time I do NOT buy DRM originals and I do notify publishers when I find a book that I would purchase if it were DRM free. If I should add a DRM encumbered book to the collection, then there will be 2 copies...the original as purchased and a DRM free version for my library.

The ebook collection is backed up offsite. This collection will be available to the great-great-granchildren.

The paper collection will be also IF and only if it is not burned, stolen, lost, flooded, worn out and all the other ways that paper volumes can be destroyed unless they are locked in a secure vault with access prohibited or severely restricted as is normal for originals of valuable books with a copy count under 100 worldwide.

Note that unless reprints are made, the copy count for a paper title goes down each time a copy is damaged or destroyed. ebooks are much easier to restore from backups or archive copies.

The Google scanning Project, Internet Archive, The Library of Congress Digitization and similar initiatives are useful for warehousing print editions in a durable form. However with rare exceptions these projects are storage only until such time as the copyright term has expired. For orphan books with an unknown copyright that period is currently the maximum possible term regardless of what the actual status is

This bookstore is creating digital editions with a known & published copyright liability and is actually making books available to the general public that will not be available from the legal archives for another 100 to 150 years due to the duration of an undocumented copyright.

So while I agree with Goreproductions about only buying books that I will own, In the modern world ebooks have the edge. Also for the ultimate "best of both worlds" you can have your personal ebooks printed in hardcopy by one-off book printing machines available from multiple vendors. These one-off book printers can be found in some bookstores. If you have a favorite Indie bookstore near you, talk to the management to see if custom printing from an ebook archive is something they would be interested in. Don't forget to ask also if they can set up the operation to allow printing from the customer's media in a manner similar to the digital photo printing available worldwide now

Copyright holders should have to _apply_ to extended the holding term beyond a given point, say 10 or 20 years. And a part of approving a longer term is that they should also be required to show that they are continuing to provide, or at the very least, maintain The Works that they are receiving protection for.

Simply put: No maintenance, no copyright. The gift of copyright from The Public to The Holder should be given only upon the proviso that The Holder commits to returning The Work to The Public once he or she is either no longer able to, or no longer willing to maintain it.

I don't completely disagree with you, but I have to wonder exactly what do you mean by maintaining a published work. I don't think having once published a novel should turn into a sinecure, but at the same time, the idea that an author needs to continue to provide or maintain a work of literature seems to me an invitation for Lucas-levels of tweaking.

How do you propose to balance these points? I can't imagine anyone lining up to buy The Cryptonomicon: Special Edition, so I don't really understand the idea that a work of literature needs to be maintained.